No Trackbacks

May we impose upon you to please check out our new blog that promotes the book ‘Why Human Beings Do Not Need Blind Faith to Believe in Creationism’? It is the very first and only work to literally prove that the Biblical Story of creation is in sync with the teachings of modern science.

I trust you will agree that the ramifications are myriad so if you would like further details or will permit a guest blog, please advise. Thank you.

Sol Huriash

solhuriash.blogspot.com

Evolution isn’t exactly science, either.

One popular objection to religious explanations of human origins is that they lead to what is affectionately referred to as a “God of the gaps”; that is, God being used to explain what science cannot.

Here’s the problem: similar objections to evolution are more than plentiful. Just remember all of the times you heard an ID proponent say something to this effect; “evolution can’t explain such and such a trait.” To which the evolutionists usually reply that the fossil record is incomplete and that if we had the entire fossil record it would no doubt show exactly how that particular trait evolved. But for some inexplicable reason, this is not referred to as evolution of the *gaps*. In fact, evolutionists are given a free pass on this obvious intellectual defect in their position. “Not only can evolution explain all of this, but evolution can explain what evolution cannot.” How does that make sense?

While atheist often object that you can’t test and verify the God hypothesis. So many of their own hypotheses regarding human origins remain untested and unverified due to the overwhelming gaps in the fossil record.

It may be legitimate science to say that based on the available evidence we hypothesize that this is how this particular trait evolved. It is not by any stretch of the imagination legitimate science to say that based on the available evidence evolution is responsible for the development of all traits. That would be evolution of the gaps.

“I understand that not every atheist scientist feels the need to abolish religion. (Please see the link above to Beyond Belief.) However, those who do wish to regulate science to expel religious beliefs (and they exist!), or shun those who are religious as unscientific, are extremely wrong.”

Science is not about “expelling religious beliefs” ... it is about studying how the natural world works. Some of the greatest science in history has been done by persons of remarkable religious faith. But the issue of faith or non-faith of the scientist is really a distraction; it’s a non-issue; it’s irrelevant to the knowledge.



“Granted, teaching evolution in the classroom is not the same as teaching that God does not exist.”

True ...

“But failing to ground the “where we come from” question with solid metaphysical and theological concepts is, I believe, a pedagogical mistake. It is important to note that ID grew out of a legislative education issue.”

“Where-we-come-from” in a natural-world sense is a scientific question. “Where-we-come-from” in a metaphysical sense is not. Confusing these notions certainly makes for bad science, and perhaps bad metaphysics, too.


“What is unscientific about teaching the principle of causality (which is included among St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 ways to know God)? The concept of God as a First Cause of everything is, after all, a very rational argument.”

Well, what’s unscientific about it in the sense you’re writing (St. Thomas/First Cause) is it’s not science, it’s philosophy. The First-Cause argument, as the history of philosophy has shown, may be rational, but it’s also fallacious. And it’s *philosophy*, not *science*.



“Philosophy and theology are respectable, rigorous disciplines in their own right, and they too can boast of journals and reviews, etc.”

These certainly are respectable disciplines in their own right; but they are not science. They are “philosophy” and “theology”.

“The concept of God as a First Cause of everything is, after all, a very rational argument.”

Except for that annoying little question of what caused God. theists have never been able to square this with their insistence that everything must have a cause. A proposition that is self-contradictory can hardly be passed off as rational.

“does free will matter?”

In a word: Yes.

This is an interesting piece, thank you Amanda. I think it really hit home on many levels. What I see in the blog itself and in the comments is a disunity (if I may) in beliefs. Not only are ID defenders divided in their stance, but Darwinists are also divided. Thus, I find the issue confused in the debate. Are we arguing about faith or about science? Let’s stick to one topic. For this piece, its about ID vs Evolutionism. Most churches do not have a completely clear stance on this issue. For example, the Catholic Church does not outright condemn evolution theories. Rather, they simply say, do not remove God from the process. I do completely agree with Jordan, free will does matter whether you are an atheist or a die-hard God lover.

To me the difference between humans and other animals is one of degree, but great degree. I think we’re as much like any other animal as the latest Boeing airliner is like the plane Lindberg flew across the Atlantic.

That’s a bigger gap than natural selection can account for, but less of a gap than you need a God for, I think. So what is the mechanism behind such great leaps? I wish science was more concerned with that than with defending natural selection.

Where we choose to go must to some extent be influenced by how we think we are equipped. We will make our plans based on that.

If we think we have been equipped by natural selection, our options will seem meagre. If we think we have been equipped by God then we will limit our options to what we think He allows us. But if we have been been equipped by an agent capable of executing everything we see around us in nature then our options expand enormously.

I see widespread adoption of the idea of evolution as a huge change in human culture, equivalent to the ancient Greek revolution in philosophy. Culture will divide into before, and after, the discovery of evolution. We have not yet begun (because of the frustrating barrier posed to our thinking by natural selection) to equip ourselves with what we now know is available--the principles that lie behind evolution. With that equipment a new journey of unprecedented potential opens up. But, as I said, we have not yet begun, and won’t until evolutionary science abandons natural selection.

“Dawkins and others ... neglected to educate themselves on the official position of the Catholic Church in regards to science.”

What you mean is that Dawkins should assume Catholicism is the real religion and study up on it to find out why Catholicism is correct.

Dawkins is not from a Catholic country, why would he do that?

Why don’t you read up on a competing religion to get your head straight? Oh and don’t forget to guess which one is real first.

Dawkins, by his own admission, does not approach evolution from an academic, dispassionate point of view;

“Explaining is a difficult art. You can explain something so that your reader understands the words; and you can explain something so that the reader feels it in the marrow of his bones. To do the latter, it sometimes isn’t enough to lay the evidence before the reader in a dispassionate way. You have to become an advocate and use the tricks of the advocate’s trade. This book is not a dispassionate scientific treatise.”

Richard Dawkins - Preface to “The Blind Watchmaker”. Emphasis mine.

Dawkins comes to this debate with just as much bias, if not more, than his religious counterparts.

An informative article is:
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm

A partial qoute includes:

- God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning. Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)

- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])

- Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
. . .
- The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things,
the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
(End of partial quote)
From: http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm

Footnotes:
Genesis 1-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11;&version=31;

Mark 10:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark10:6;&version=31;

Reginald Selkirk says: (#7) says, Except for that annoying little question of what caused God. theists have never been able to square this with their insistence that everything must have a cause. A proposition that is self-contradictory can hardly be passed off as rational.

You must first present the argument correctly. It is not that “everything must have a cause.” Correctly stated, it is “every effect must have a cause.” Theists would say that God is not an “effect” but in fact the first cause.

This, by the way, is not a strictly theological argument. After all, the first person to formulate it was Aristotle, working on strictly rational grounds.

Sir Fred Hoyle has given the probability of cell creation being left to chance at ten to the 40000 power. An athiest came up with this.(verified and supported) The number of electrons is at ten to the 80th power. (verified and supported).
Neither side has a proven fact but they have faith that their theory is proven. There is no difference in the hearts and minds of creationists vs ID ists... except...
ID ists are willing to be REAL scientists and look at all the data while creationists maintain that the world is flat and will not look at any data that doesn’t support their own.
It is this close mindedness that leaves them afraid that they will (in my opinion)have to rethink their entire thought history. That is not the case. It will open scientific door that will amaze and excite them if they only open their mind.

A radio ad for Ben Stein’s movie claims that universities are committing censorship of professors who teach “intelligent design.” Censorship can only be done by governmemt. Universities have a right to require what curriculum is taught in their schools and intelligent esign does not yet qualify as science.

I wonder how Mr. Stein would feel if scientists mounted a drive to bully churches or other religious institutions to teach evolution as an equal theory to intelligent design, and to charge those that don’t with censorship.

Then Mr. Stein and other intelligent design activists then call those who accept evolution as science as “Darwinsists” and come up with their definition of Darwinism in that name-calling.

This documentary is missing the point. Science can make no comment on anything supernatural. That is a fundamental violation of the philosophy of science. You can still have faith, but you can’t use that as a variable or as part of your hypothesis. Once you do, you enter the realm of faith and philosophy. You can still talk about it, but just don’t call it science. That’s as simple as I can make it.

I am very disappointed in Mr. Stein, who I believed to be more well-reasoned. I have not seen this film, however, I have long considered the ID/creation/evolution debate.

Simply put, science is the product of what we can experience with the senses (or their mechanical extension). Religion is in the realm of belief. We may never see a deity in a telescope, record an angel, etc. Those of us who are religious have faith in these things, and understand that they may be beyond the physical realm. But that is not science. Evolution is accepted as the most plausible explanation of the fossil evidence. Some scientists may accept that dogmatically, but that does not refute its logic. No better has been offered that has stood up to peer review. Creation “science” is reverse logic, that is, seeking explanations that fit a predetermined conclusion. Science as a community is sometimes slow to accept new directions; plate techtonics was not welcomed very warmly, for example. But it does accept irrefutable proof. Bring it on.

You can match the debate/discussion comparing ID/Darwinism to the global warming debate. There are many who are not buying that the recent warming is anthropogenic and members of that segment of the scientific community are being castigated for their opinions. You will notice I did not say beliefs. The Scientific Method cannot run its full course for either of these debates because there are not enough facts.

With ID, there is a faith factor that must be considered. Just because some believe ID is the explanation as to why/how we are here does not automatically knock 50 points from their IQ just as those who are Darwinists cannot, and should not, be referred to as atheists.

One can certainly get censored on this blog in a hurry.

I apologize. I did not realize that this was a Roman Catholic blog, or I might have been more diplomatic and tactful.

Maybe. Probably not.